Hi Georg, I agree with your argument.
Distinguishing "advanced functional interoperability" from PDF like "functional interoperability" is helpful as the information can be presented in a more or less customised way leveraging the underlying RM classes -> Ocean's EHRview (https://wiki.oceaninformatics.com/confluence/display/ocean/EhrView+Demonstration - unfortunately currently unavailable) is an example for such a generic display mechanism. Obviously if the archetypes are known as well more sophisticated customization is possible. Every clinical information system could implement a similar mechanism to display openEHR data (even without archetypes) more or less adapted to their environment. However, this is only helpful for read-only interfaces. To be able to edit the data the archetypes have to be known! Cheers, Thilo On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Georg Duftschmid <georg.duftschmid at meduniwien.ac.at> wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to ask you for your opinion on a statement in ISO/DTR 20514 > (Definition, scope and context of the EHR), which says that "[...] a > standardised EHR reference model is required for achieving functional > interoperability [...]" (page 7 of ISO 20514). > > Functional interoperability is defined as "the ability of two or more > systems to exchange information (so that it is human readable by the > receiver)". > > I am now wondering why an EHR reference model is seen to be REQUIRED for > achieving functional interoperability. If I exchange bare PDF-documents > (without any describing metadata) between two EHR systems, then I would say > there is a good chance that these docs are readable by a human receiver and > thus functional interoperability should be achieved although clearly an EHR > reference model is not used. > > I agree that an EHR reference model alone is not enough to achieve semantic > interoperability (agreed archetypes and terminology are missing) and > therefore by using an EHR reference model alone one can still only achieve > functional interoperability. However, this seems to me as some kind of > "advanced functional interoperability", where the receiving EHR system knows > the basic components (the RM classes and their attributes) from which EHR > information is composed. > > So I have the impression that an EHR reference model helps to achieve some > kind of "advanced functional interoperability", but I would not say that it > is REQUIRED to achieve functional interoperability (refering to the > PDF-exchange as a counter-example). > > What do you think? > > Thank you for any comments and best regards, > Georg > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical > >
